------- Additional Comments From ejt at andrew dot cmu dot edu 2007-05-23 16:25 ------- > You are incorrect. The standard does not cover archive libraries, and > so the definition of "container" you're assuming has no basis in the > standard. It doesn't need to cover archives, containers, or any other such wrappers! It covers what goes *into* the wrapper. Your wrapper changes the behavior of the stuff that's inside, thus breaking what *is* covered and expected by the spec.
I consider this a bug, unless you want to argue that it's acceptable behavior for the archive to change the runtime results of code which is produced with it. That's a very slippery slope, because then *any* bug report is going to be brushed off with this excuse. Maybe you'd like that ;) But I prefer consistent executables whenever possible, and this is definitely possible. You already have --whole_archive, just add --all_init (or something like that) so we don't have to throw the baby (faster links, reduced size) out with the bathwater (skipping initialization). > I'm positive there are people relying on the current behavior. > Changing it would be a bad idea. ** We don't have to change the current default behavior! ** My suggested solutions wouldn't affect current code: Just add a flag so that people who are relying on this aren't bothered, and those of us who expect proper functionality can get it without sacrificing the archive format altogether. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4538 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
